December 5, 2011

2. Do not think it worth while to proceed by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light.

3. Never try to discourage thinking for you are sure to succeed.

4. When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavour to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory.,,,

Hysterical. If you're suggesting the small government movement is based on a lack of respect for authority, you're sadly off base. Lack of respect for overreaching authority, possibly. Unconstitutional authority, certainly.

If you're talking about local authority, which side filled out the forms, paid for facilities and security, and left the places they used cleaner than when they got there and which just showed up, squatted, loused up the place (literally) and tried to thwart authority constantly?

If you're simply talking about garden variety authority, which between conservatives and liberals do you suppose contains more advocates for spanking misbehaving children?

2. Do not think it worth while to proceed by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light.

I agree with this. Don't know anyone else who does, but yeah.

3. Never try to discourage thinking for you are sure to succeed.

Agree there, too. Unfortunately, thinking seems to looked down in some quarters, both liberal and conservative, these days.

4. When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavour to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory.,,,

Whatever. Knock over all the tables in the bar, see if I care. Nobody's better than you are. Get out of here. Oh, helloooo Officer,...

means the same thing today, that it did "back in the day" It means no brains. I should know, back when I thought I knew everything (40 years ago) I was one of those young ones with no brains. Good part about it, one can grow up and become a man

"Liberal" used to mean - 'you do your thing, I do mine,' not 'we get to dictate what kind of cereal you eat."

It used to mean tolerance for a variety of opinions. Not PC retaliation for every syllable one can construe to be offensive.

Frankly, my conservative friends are vastly more tolerant and open than the "liberal" ones, with very few exceptions

I still know some "real" Democrats, with NORMAL outlooks, but they get called "Republican stalking horses" and it makes the front page of the paper if we sit together (and no, I'm not famous.)

"Progressives" are regressive. They have set things back 20, maybe 30 years in terms of women and children's rights and protections. They're vicious, their politics are scorched earth and rotten with dirty-tricks. They win elections by lying about who they are and pretending to be more conservative than they are - they show up for church, they pretend to like law enforcement until elected, then it's "oh, you knew who and what I was, and you elected me so I have a mandate."

Liberal is anything but, and Progressive is like jettisoning us back centuries.

I have a great deal of respect for Russell as a philosopher, and I say that as someone who had to read quite a few of his scholarly essays. His life was a mess, though.

Also, the problem with the liberal project is that dogma set in a long time ago, and violation of Russell's second law there above is commonly violated by leftists today.

Also, the left-right vernacular stems from the French Revolution. It was Burke, though -- the first conservative -- who demolished the revolutionaries by observing that the passions of people make the liberal project unachievable and undesirable.

That said, I agree with Rev in that I consciously try to avoid using the word liberal to describe leftists.

I consciously try to avoid using the word liberal to describe leftists.

I'm sure you see a substantive difference between Obama and Castro, so I wonder why you limit your political vocabulary in such a way as to make this distinction even slightly more difficult.

"Liberal" became the name of a political party a long time ago, and its meaning quite naturally followed the arc of that party's platforms. Before the Liberal Party became nearly irrelevant, its platform had pretty much become one of personal liberty within a welfare state--which is to say, modern small-l "liberalism".

Sure. But now you're distinguishing among varieties of leftists. My point is that you need a variety of terms to correspond to the variety of viewpoints, in the same way that "right winger" fails to distinguish between Rand and Chesterton.

"Liberal" seems a perfectly clear term for describingan easily definable political view.

The problem with liberal is that it doesn't mean anything any more, as Althouse's snippet of Russell demonstrates. I would refer to myself as a classical liberal -- a liberal right at the point when the French screwed it up, or perhaps a liberal on the American trajectory, as the whole of the world even today can be encapsulated by how you feel about the French and the American Revolutions. Many people would say classical liberal. I would even accept Jacksonian liberal.

But that means nothing, because the word liberal also means a statist of the worst big-government kind. If you have to throw adjectives in front the description, the description must not be a very good one.

It's better in my opinion to avoid it altogether, and I try to do so. I also would like avoid conservative, but I don't, probably because I identify so strongly with the term.

You've just restated what's already been said several times in this thread, and which is exactly what I'm challenging.

You're a "conservative." That's plain from your many comments here. Nothing wrong with that, to me, since I'm also a conservative, of the somewhat-libertarian strain.

What I'm questioning is the clear desire many conservatives have to claim the mantle of "classical liberal". It strikes me as an odd obsession--as though fans of the Cincinnati baseball team went around saying that they were the true "red stockings," and those Boston players were impostors who'd seized the precious good name of carmine hosiery.

Lance -- An interesting point, and interestingly enough, in the course where there was so much Russell there was also a lot of pragmatism.

I chose to write a long paper on pragmatism. I have no idea what I said in that paper, but the thing I remember about pragmatism was the exhortation by William James (I think) that there are new facts every day. I thought that was really cool, and still do. I finally figured out, though, is that all those new facts do the same basic things as the old facts, for a whole host of reasons. The world is a river. The new facts are the new water that is new and different every day, but it's always the same river flowing the same basic way.

And that little parable properly understood, my friends, is conservatism in a nutshell.

Then you update your prior belief, like a good Bayesian. But once you accept the view that no other value but your prior belief is possible, no amount of data can budge your opinion. And you become a crank.

Here's a shot at some potted history: In Burke's era, and into the 19th century, about all it took to be a "liberal" was to favor republican government plus some Rights of Englishmen. As old-line Toryism fell by the wayside, the remaining rival factions could either call themselves "freedom-of-contract liberals" and "welfare-state liberals", or they could simply call themselves "conservatives" and "liberals" with the meanings abundantly clear to all concerned.

That's where we are today, and it strikes me as pointless antiquarianism to worry about what Burke considered himself.

But my original question pertained to the mentality of conservatives who long to take back the term "liberal." I just find it somewhat strange, for reasons I won't rehash.

I think you are confusing left and right with liberal and conservative. Left and right is antiquarian. Liberal and conservative are just hopelessly amorphous. But I'll take old over confusing any day.

I won't go into how the communists of the 20s, 30s, and 40s so deftly used the terms right and left to their political benefit -- how they would castigate various communists on the wrong side of the inner-circle as "right-wing elements."

I say -- often in these threads -- that if you are arguing semantics you have lost the battle. And if that's true, then clearly we are both defeated in a rout.

Oh, I disagree with this, and I don't think it's a semantic quibble. Whatever else modern liberalism might consist of, its essential feature is a commitment to meliorism. Conservatism's essence is a Burkean deference to tradition, on the grounds that society is a complex structure that we do not generally understand well enough to restructure along purely rationalist lines.

I think that distinction is fundamental. If you want to argue that many of us struggle internally with the conflict between these views at times, I won't disagree. I think the threads on topics like gay marriage sit atop that fault line. But that's not amorphism, IMO. OTOH, that is a semantic point, so I'll shut up now.

"What I'm questioning is the clear desire many conservatives have to claim the mantle of "classical liberal"."

The definition of classic liberal economics is the theory based on Adam Smith/equilibrium/invisible hand.

Likewise, the concept of natural rights and contract/social theory.

In America, this theory is promoted by both the mainstream right and left, but in different ways. Simplistically, the right advocates economic liberalism and the left advocates social liberalism. ACLU and freedom of speech; Nazis marching in Skokie.

The concept of inalienable rights exists for parties on the right and left in America. This is not true of many countries.

Translation:Shut up, while:Incandescent light bulbs are banned, smoking is banned, SUV's are regulated out of existence, soda is banned, health care becomes more expensive, crappier, and run by the government, the economy is ruined to stop "global warming" etc, etc, etc...

Unfortunately Russell didn't follow that advice himself. His history of philosophy is universally recognized as one of the most biased works in that field, his political philosophy is completely one-sided, and his philosophy of religion is nothing more than a collection of strawman and ad hominem arguments. Regarding the last, anyone who has studied the philosophy of religion and reads Russell ends up feeling embarassed for him. He clearly didn't even know the first thing about the subject.

Russell's comment is itself absolutist. I have to be open-minded on Nazism? Communism? Sucking on feces? I have to go through life as a flower child, open and innocent, a nihilist who doesn't know anything?

Why don't we apply rule #1 to rule #1? Maybe there are some things we should feel absolutely. Why qualify doubt as the dominant virtue?

Me: "What a retarded thing to say."

Russell: "It might be. I form no judgments on my own statement. I am open-minded and nice."

I would say rule #1 has dominated liberalism to such an extent that the only bad thing to a liberal is to be "close-minded" or "judgmental." So, for instance, instead of arguing, a liberal resorts to dismissing opponents as "racist, sexist, homophobe, Nazi" etc., all of which are another way of saying close-minded or judgmental.

In other words, Russell's conceit is that liberals are open-minded and conservatives are close-minded. This idea has so poisoned liberalism ("we're better than you"), liberals refuse to debate things with their opponents. Indeed, the whole notion of debate suggests that there is a correct result, a winner and a loser, a smart idea and a dumb idea, that we might find through hashing out the arguments as best we can. But why bother if judgment itself is shouted down as bad?

How about instead of castigating the close-minded, liberals try making a list of acts that are absolutely bad? For instance, rape is absolutely bad. Isn't it? Please give us some examples when rape might be okay. Infanticide. Slavery. The Holocaust.

Imagine Russell as God, laying down a Commandment on his people. "Do not feel absolutely certain of anything." Boy, you're an ugly god. I don't like you at all.

Me: "How is nihilism working out for you, liberals?"

Liberals: "Oh, it's okay. I have no strong feeling on it, one way or the other. My mind is open."

its platform had pretty much become one of personal liberty within a welfare state--which is to say, modern small-l "liberalism

Which is akin to discussing your monogamous relationship with your professional sex worker Significant Other. One cannot have a “Welfare State” AND Personal Liberty. One can have Personal Liberty, the right to smoke, drink, eat, have sex with, not hire any N!ggers, Kikes, Dagoes, O-Fays, Crackers, Rabi Blancoes, Gweilos/Gweilas as you see fit, AND to starve to death or die of gluttony, alcoholism, or AIDS, to be reviled and spat upon….OR one can have a Welfare State, where certain things, “Cost us all” and therefore have to be regulated or banned….where, in order, to ensure equality, one cannot do bad things to people you don’t like, but where the State CAN practice discrimination.

Or in the words of PJ O’Rourke, “Any state capable of giving you everything, is capable of taking it all away.” One has to choose between those two ideas, the Welfare State (and inequality) OR Personal Liberty (great inequality).

I'm seeing some clutter here! The clutter derision is funny to me. Having worked for attorneys for decades a red flag for me was an office that had no clutter. The attorney was often humorless, anal, and they thought everything was about "the law" and not "the facts"..a fatal flaw for a litigator. Conversely, some of the best attorneys I worked for, the kind I would hire, had clutter. My office is very cluttered.

I would be interested to know how all your offices/work sites look. Photos would be nice.

Sound advice though perhaps a bit naive. But anyone who humped TS Eliot's gal can't be all bad .

Always expect some kumbayah moralist (right or left) to mention Russell's supposed recommendation of a "pre-emptive strike" against the USSR. Not what Russell said: he was discussing getting the Russians to the bargaining table, and made an offhanded remark. He was adamantly against nukes (and the US involvement in the Vietnam war).

Russel only said those things because he thought it convenient to do so as a general theory. But when confronted by some of his grad students with the news that some of his social theories didn't jibe with the "facts" as measured in the real world, he famously replied: "Well, so much worse for the facts."

They dominate TV, music, newspapers, cinema, education and world politics. It's impossible not to hear them and their ideas. We all get educated by them. Reason is the only reason we aren't all leftists. Give it a taste, just once, and you won't go back.

@AlphaLiberal -- All I do is listen to liberals. Some of this are open minded and thoughtful. Some aren't. Just like conservatives.

RV has a better insight than yours. The term has lost its meaning because it is applied indiscriminately. Is Obama a liberal? Our Robert Cook will tell you he's not, and Cook is right.

And yet Obama has aligned himself with an economic policy associated with those considered liberal (Russell was a socialist, after all) and with a set of prejudices common to a class of people who consider themselves liberal.

It's all marking now, these associations. It's all pee and no hydrant.

We just have a bit more fight these days, in the face of rampant extremism on the right. (Which Althouse embraces).

Exactly. Because the right doesn't have to face rampant extremism on the left. At all. Anywhere. Even in tents. With lice. And death. Nope. No leftist extremism at all. You would be reactionary to even suggest it.

They dominate TV, music, newspapers, cinema, education and world politics.

Oh, bullshit. Every Sunday morning I watch as conservatives outnumber liberals - often without any liberals actually shown on Sunday morning on any show.

But, then, you probably consider a moderate Republican or a news reporter who doesn't regurgitate Fox News talking points to be a "liberal."

FZ:Alpha. The same is true for your side of the spectrum.

False, false, false. By my presence here and that of others, I am an example of a liberal listening and engaging directly with con's. Media Matters directly quotes the words of conservatives.

OTOH, you have Mitt Romney quote Obama and completely distort what he said. As just one example.

Dialog is impossible anymore, though. the right wing has their own cocooned media and they won't listen to anything else. They lap up the false propaganda and go merrily on their way repeating the falsehoods and lies.

How much have you listened here and based your views on what you heard?

I've listened to liberals/progressives all my life and based much of my views on what I've heard. Since much of what I've heard is idiocy, my views run contrary to current day liberalism. Plus, I refuse to be as caught up in hate at the typical liberal as portrayed by yourself, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, OWS protesters, et al.

Every Sunday morning I watch as conservatives outnumber liberals - often without any liberals actually shown on Sunday morning on any show.

Hysterical. I suggest we canvas the marquee Sunday morning news shows for ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MS-NBC and FOX this coming and total them up. While one day does not a trend make, it might prove a bit more illuminating.

Eric Holder, Barack Obama, John Kerry, Dick Nixon, man I could take up pages just naming politicians

As far as the po-po authority, how many times do cops go to a domestic disturbance until someone dies? Obeying authority is a personal choice. Integrity is what you do when no one else is looking.

@ Joe

You said "One has to choose between those two ideas, the Welfare State (and inequality) OR Personal Liberty (great inequality)."

You're mis-using a term here I hope. The Welfare state has by far greater inequality for it ensures an equal outcome based on disparate talents. The Personal Liberty state has everyone starting from the same page, and the outcome is what you make of it. Fairness doesn't apply either, so I can't suggest what term you did mean to use.

Russels' list is at best sophomoric. Several on here have already pointed out the fallacies involved in it.

The talent to weave words into a hynotizing lace does not make one a deep thinker, just a word smith. A used car dealer comes to mind.

As far as Liberal/Conservative labeling, the are pitfalls in labeling one person anything obviously. Groups I'll concede a maybe.

For example, I would be considered right of Atilla by most people in America today, but I agree with some of the OWS points. How could I not? I think people should suffer the consequences of their bad decisions ie, no bailouts for banks, car companies etc...

The "but" here is that OWS was also clammoring for forgiveness of their debts too. Huh?

One of Lifes rules I try to live by is the "Golden Rule", and I don't mean the one you see on tee-shirts about "he who has the gold..."

A few more,

If it seems to good to be true, it probably is

Trust, but verify

Don't pull a gun unless you intend to use it

Treat all people equally. Like royalty, or pieces of shit, but do it equally.

Everyone has troubles. Your neighbors troubles may seem silly to you, but they are HIS troubles

This might make for a nice separate thread. We can suggest some aphorisms, and vote up/down twinkles on them.

I'd wager that the Liberals and Conservatives would agree more often than not though.

Exactly. Because the right doesn't have to face rampant extremism on the left.

That's true. You don't.

Your argument is the equivalent of "I'm rubber and you're glue..."

Civil disobedience is a very American tradition, starting with the Boston Tea Party, which was a protest of a big abusive corporation, to MLK to OWS.

Then you have right wing extremism: * Stripping people of their right to vote. * Trying to remove the direct election of Senators. * Running up huge budget deficits to borrow money to give tax breaks to the rich. * Destroying unions. * Destroying government's ability to regulate corporations and removing the ability of wronged citizens to sue corporations. * Citizens United. * Trying to establish a state-sponsored religion. * Opposing many or all forms of birth control. * Setting records in the use of the filibuster to stop legislation the Senate minority doesn't like. * Trying to strip minorities of rights to marry, vote, and seek redress of grievances. * Oh, let's not forget their efforts to repeal child freaking labor laws.

And on and on and on. Not that facts or data matter to a conservative. The only information they will accept is that which has been predigested and regurgitated to them by Fox News.

If Ann Althouse thinks a conservative open minded, she is far more deluded than I suspected.

With close minded ideologies like yourself, yes it is. There are a few liberals, a few, who still posess enough self awareness to engage in meaningful debate but they're on the endangered species list.

Hysterical. I suggest we canvas the marquee Sunday morning news shows for ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MS-NBC and FOX this coming and total them up. While one day does not a trend make, it might prove a bit more illuminating.

this has been done for years. The data is compiled. But you will not believe it if it is not from Fox News or Lush Windbag.

Of course, you'd probably categorize a new reporter as a liberal because they don't parrot propaganda. (Hint: Harold Ford is no freaking liberal).

Ah...the science is settled, I suppose? Speaking of close-minded and a reluctance to be reasonable...I mention a harmless challenge and plan on doing it this Sunday whether you participate or not. Your response to that one, itty-bitty piece of completely unbiased engagement is met with you slamming the door because, for you, it's already been decided.

i thought you were counting liberals and conservatives in church on sunday morning. i have to believe there are more conservatives in church. on tv sunday morning, meet the press has more liberals, fox has more conservatives and this week leans left but not like meet the press. i never watch schieffer so i can't say. i like fareed, he leans left and has a lot of international people.

Also, too, the era that Bertrand Russel wrote in was far different than today. Back then both parties accepted labor unions and the idea that the wealthy should pay a higher percentage of taxes than the rest.

Top tax rates under Dwight Eisenhower we above 90%. We did not have the glaring inequalities of wealth we have today. The idea then was that the wealthy should give back to the society that gave them so much. Today, they demand the ability to take, take, take and hoard, hoard, hoard.

But, today Dwight Eisenhower would be considered a liberal. Along with Ronald Reagan who raised taxes, what, nine times? Because he cared more about country than ideology.

I'm looking for an intellectually honest conservative. Perhaps one conservative here will admit that the Bush tax cuts did not create jobs as promised. We wound up with an economic crash of historic proportion.

So, here comes Ann Althouse to bash liberals over certitude while her beloved conservatives continue to demand that we return to the same policies that wrecked the economy!!

Given that modern Christianity has been hijacked by a political creed that is exactly opposite of what Jesus Christ preached, yes. Many liberals are disgusted with modern Christianity that has so little to do with what Jesus preached.

Jesus did not preach that the rich be served first and the poor ignored.

Jesus did not preach hatred as does the right wing, constantly.

Jesus preached welcoming the stranger, not making scapegoats of them, as con's do with immigrants.

Jesus never said a thing about gays. The only biblical passage is among the often bizarre and seldom-followed passages of Leviticus.

And then there is the organized crime that was systematic covering up of child sexual abuse by priests.

If you believe that, just how did that work? People (all incomes) got more money and so they stopped paying their mortgages? Is that it?

Instead of filtering it through your world view, look at the facts. Basically the same number of jobs as when he started. In his final year in office, we were shedding jobs at a half million per month.

To your question: The rich don't get rich by letting money "trickle down." They do invest but are more likely to create jobs in Pac Rim than USA.

Our current economic crisis is due to a lack of demand. Corps are sitting on lots and lots of cash but it doesn't make sense for them to invest when they don't have customers.

Given their customers are cutting back and suffering declines in wages and benefits or unemployment, not much chance for demand to rise.

With governments, also, cutting back, overall demand falls more.

In fact we have had our times of lowest unemployment when we have had higher taxes on the wealthy. Look at the 1950s that Althouse hearkens back to!

Our rich rulers want high unemployment because it comes with very low inflation and low demands for higher wages. More lucre for them.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)Jesus never said a thing about gays. The only biblical passage is among the often bizarre and seldom-followed passages of Leviticus

Have ye not read that He who made them at the beginning, made them male and female and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife and they two shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man divorce.

Astounding. Conservative economic policies created a great recession that we are still trying to recover from.

But you guys still demand we adopt trickle down tax cuts after 10 years and one trillion dollars in trickle down tax cuts led to a massive jobs crisis.

You think deregulation is the cure, after Bush and Clinton lifted regulation on Wall Street and they looted and tanked our economy with their greed.

Conservatives refuse to admit that corporate executives are anything but noble and blameless. It's, at root, a childish view of the world that ignores the corruption and greed in the private sector today.

Scott, if you think John McCain is a liberal than you have a very very distorted world view.

Please show me where I said anything of the sort. This statement by you reveals a not-so-startling truth about you, though. You have a very either-or worldview. Apparently there's no room for anything else other than conservatives and liberals in your mind.

"frankz said...man o man, there's a lot of anger here. i heard this was a civil venue."

You cannot be civil with those whose only purpose is to disrupt your conversation. When AL, J, and Garage are posting it's a waste of time, which is exactly why they do it. Apparently their own contribution to society amounts to so little disrupting others exceeds any other effort they could make.

"frankz said...man o man, there's a lot of anger here. i heard this was a civil venue."

It really is not. Look up above where Scott M refers to Occupy Wall street protesters as lice ridden and filthy. You think that's civil? I've been called every name in the book on this web site for simply making arguments contrary to conservative dogma.

Not to mention the frequent lies and insults against liberals all over this site, from the blogess and others. I know many people accept insults (for libs, not cons) but it is not civil. Even when done against libs.

Anger? Yes. I am angry. Very angry. angry that my religion was hijacked and betrayed, and likewise for my country. Angry at the rampant corruption. And angry that people like Ann Althouse lie about people like me.

AL's not a leftist, Squatty. It's a sockpuppet--more than likely your TP crony, you know, byro-jay-sorepaw-titus, now doing his leftist schtick, ie the mockery of any authentic demo values. He's as venal and corrupt as the ordinary conservative.

alpha. i must say i see blindness from both sides here. regarding the snapshot of this past sunday. there are republican primaries coming up therefore the shows should have the candidates on so we can learn.

marshall, i just got here and i'm learning the people. i don't think i'll stay too long. i had enough anger with my family at thanksgiving. and christmas is coming up. serenity now.

Here is an example of defense of blatant lying by a Republican frontrunner, one who claims to be a religious person BTW. From a Romney spokesman, defending his lie about an Obama quote: “First of all, ads are propaganda by definition. We are in the persuasion business, the propaganda business ... Ads are agitprop ... Ads are about hyperbole, they are about editing. It’s ludicrous for them to say that an ad is taking something out of context ... All ads do that. They are manipulative pieces of persuasive art.”

That's a Republican talking. The truth doesn't matter and people who think it should are losers.

I'm angry at the conservatives and moderates who go along with that sort of thing and will not criticize it because the speaker is a conservative.

Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.Robert A. Heinlein

Speaking of "liberals," evidently, Alpha has not used his absence from this site to resolve his cognitive dissonance by remedial study. He continues instead to resort to hyperbole, blame and self-delusion.

there are republican primaries coming up therefore the shows should have the candidates on so we can learn.

The same imbalance persists in all seasons, regardless of which party is in the majorities in Congress. When Dems controlled both chambers 2008-2010, we watched as week after week the talk shows were dominated by conservatives and Republicans.

It really is not. Look up above where Scott M refers to Occupy Wall street protesters as lice ridden and filthy.

For someone who's widdle feewings got hurt because someone supposedly misrepresented what he wrote, you're doing a bang up job of embracing deh derp today. Please show me where I wrote lice-ridden "and filthy". That second part is YOUR characterization of what I said. I never said anything of the sort.

The lice part was widely reported and addressed by the protestors themselves. If you think, somehow, that the unsanitary conditions at the occupy squatter sites was part of some conservative cabal, you apparently weren't paying very close attention. Or you were, but with a hugely warped lens.

I'll wait your apology for being intellectually dishonest, but I not going to hold my breath.

Alpha, your entire contribution to this blog - ever, over many years - has been *nothing* but bile, hatred, and propaganda. You are a hysterical shrieking demagogue - the last person who should characterize themselves as "liberal".

"marshall, i just got here and i'm learning the people. i don't think i'll stay too long. i had enough anger with my family at thanksgiving. and christmas is coming up. serenity now."

I can't blame you, but this is exactly their strategy. Drive off anyone interested in a discussion by turning every thread into a raving lunatic contest. So when you reach 25 posts in a row with nothing but their spew there's it's pretty normal to move on.

".... Another fine example of the police state that progressives fully support. But, we're supposed to respect their authority and listen to them..."

Steyn linked to a Boston Globe article where a first grader got into a fight with another kid and kicked him in the nuts. The kid is now being investigated by the school for...wait for it...sexual assault.

I wonder how many times J has to accuse someone of being a sockpuppet of this evil puppetmaster "Byro" before it becomes "repetitive".

Thousands of times? Tens of thousands?

Anywho...Alpha, what do you think of the Russell essay that's the topic of the post -- how do you think self-identified liberals in the pro-AGW camp have measured up to Russell's criteria for liberalism?

-- I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.

Yes, know your shit. Yes, stand by what you know.

But always keep in mind the possibility that you might be wrong. And worse, that the other guy just might be right.

Of course, but knowing we're all capable of being fallible in our judgments is still KNOWING something. I see people, myself included, who get punished for confidently stating the obvious - and that's what's presented as our crime. "Be humble!" they scream - not you're wrong. To confidently stride the Earth, because you KNOW there's a very real planet beneath your feet, is "insulting" to such people. They demand others bow to their insecurities regarding their own ignorance and doubts - a flaw on their part they're hardly equipped to deal with, obviously.

It's a shame we eliminated the madhouse, if you asked me,...

Oh, and you guys have joined Alpha and J in the traditional Althouse domination of the thread. Considering what they bring to the table (has either ever conceded anything?) those of you with your critical faculties intact should be ashamed,...

Not exactly hombre-sockpup (more than likely byro-sorepaw). Nothin' to do with AL. But pointing out RA Swinelein's politics--Nixonian (McCarthyite as well), pro-war, capitalist..and an atheist and Darwinist. RAH was about like Ayn Rand (who he praised) who finished an engineering course or two (allegedly). A failed nurse compare to the likes of Lord Russell

On the positive side, there is another "Starship Troopers" being made and, thankfully, they're not going to let Verhoeven anywhere close to it.

Frankly, I highly doubt that the discussions by the Mr Dubois character are going to get much attention if any at all. However, if they do, maybe we'll see a generation of parents willing to spank their kids.

"Lord Russell" descended into mere crankery and became a parody of himself, thanks to his masturbatory Class Traitor liberalism (jealousy of his more charismatic and appealing brother, who bff'd around with Santayana in their salad days).

More awfully than the T. S. Eliot connection, he purportedly cuckolded Whitehead too. Some thanks on the Principia Mathematica.

Russell never claimed to have solved all logical problems. Indeed Goedel's proof of the completeness of first order logic mostly vindicated Russell and Whitehead's Principia (the incompleteness proofs applied to 2nd order, math. foundations, etc). And St. Wittgenstein? No comment, except that most of the Tractatus followed from Russell's logical writings (and Frege).

Re the other bio-jazz--you're getting the usual ad hominem on, Luc. ( both extreme right and left said nasty things about Russell.)

One would think, tho, if first period Wittgenstein merely flows straight from Russell's limpid pool of brilliance, Russell wouldn't have John the Baptist-ed himself to Wittgenstein's Messiah.

Of all the things to derive from 200-level notes, the idea that Russell somehow stands supreme-- or more than barely standing on his feet--among 20th century intellectual titans, is curious, though not in the sense that it inspires further inquiry.

Not that his pre-WWI work is baleful. But fifty years is a long time to dedicate oneself to sophistical pedantry.

But then, some people start on that road from the crib, straight to momma's basement.

This is not the right question. Even more then than now the income tax code included myriad deductions allowing those who might have been subjected to the 90% rate to avoid income tax on the income which otherwise would have been confiscated. Virtually no one paid the 90% rate. The sole purpose for the 90% rate was to force rich Americans to spend money the way congress wanted, or their income would be confiscated.

The discourse is usually a bit higher caliber. We have a small (fortunately) stable of thread carpet bombers that can't help the ad hominem. Even if they make a valid point, they can't help throwing an unnecessary barb on the end of it. Granted, as with just about everything involving human endeavor, it's on a bell curve. The truly injane are outliers.

Bertram Russell in the New York Times magazine: "The best answer to fanaticism: Liberalism"

Woody Allen in Manhattan: "Has anybody read that Nazis are gonna march in New Jersey? Y'know, I read this in the newspaper. We should go down there, get some guys together, y'know, get some bricks and baseball bats and really explain things to them."

Party Guest: "There is this devastating satirical piece on that on the Op Ed page of the Times, it is devastating."

Woody Allen: "Well, a satirical piece in the Times is one thing, but bricks and baseball bats really gets right to the point."

Interesting to think of examples from the headlines that illustrate how far we have come adrift from these by-and-large sensible principles:

1. Do not feel absolutely certain of anything. SEE: Global Warming2. Do not think it worth while to proceed by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light. SEE: Eric Holder and Fast & Furious3. Never try to discourage thinking for you are sure to succeed. SEE: Speech restrictions on university campuses4. When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavour to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory. SEE: Obamacare, School Vouchers, Tax increases, . . .5. Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found. SEE: Dissing allies and extending the hand of friendship to enemies.6. Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you. SEE: MSM and the Tea Party7. Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric. SEE: Ayn Rand8. Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent that in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter. SEE: Paul Ryan9. Be scrupulously truthful, even if the truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it. SEE: Greece, Pensions, Federal Spending, . . . 10. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness. SEE: OWS

There are right-wingers, from Plato to Bork, who think that free speech requires a moral relativism, or a moral nihilism, of the sort that Russell preached. These right-wingers, in my opinion, are utterly wrong. One can believe in moral absolutes, and still recognize that you shouldn't grant the government authority to lock people up for speaking out against it. Plato's assumption that the powerful and the righteous are always on the same side is laughable at best.

The free speech clause, like all of the Constitution, is best seen as procedural. It's a legal framework to divide up power and to keep a few people from amassing too much of it.

Thus Hugo Black (rightly) was unafraid to say that the free speech clause was "absolute." He fought like a dog to protect the rights of Communists, Nazis, etc. Not because they might be right, but because the people have not granted any authority to the government to lock up citizens for speaking out against it. Period.

Indeed, the so-called "liberal" (and unelected) jurist who denies any absolutes and creates a balancing test, secretly gives himself the power to decide if this or that speaker is to be punished.

And so-called "liberals" who are indoctrinated to be moderate, open-minded, unsure, and docile, watch all this happen and do nothing.

If you will not fight for what you believe in, then other, stronger people will impose their will upon you.

Indeed, the whole point of our liberal government is to keep power from accumulating in the hands of a tyrant. I do not see Russell, then, as a liberal in the classical sense of a Jefferson, who certainly was willing to fight for what he believed in. Would Russell have written the Declaration of Independence?

Alpha: Tax rates were 90% at the top. Do you know how many people actually paid at that rate given the cornucopia of deductions available at that time? I suspect you do not and I suspect I would waste my time in giving you the answers. Should you be curious you know how to find out.

Supposing you did look into this would you be willing to reinstitute the deductions and exemptions if we went back to the 90%?

I don't call lefties "liberals" anymore. Most lefties are not worthy of the term "liberal" or "progressive".

There was value in the debate between conservatism and classic liberalism. Classic liberals were worthy opponents. There isn't much value in lefty politics nowadays, it is mostly about gaining and keeping power by relentlessly expanding the size and power of government.

I agree with Althouse that the left has mutated over the course of her life (mine, too, I'm about the same age as Althouse).